U.S. labor unions have seen a dramatic decline in membership in the private sector, where only 6.5 percent of the employees are unionized. The situation is very different in the public sector, however, where 40 percent of government employees are unionized. These numbers are the result of very different trends—in the 1950s, the situation was approximately reversed, with roughly 35 percent of private-sector workers and 12 percent of public-sector employees belonging to unions.

Research suggests two core reasons public-sector unions have grown. First, changes in state and national labor laws have made it easier for public-sector unions to organize. Some also argue that enforcement agencies have tolerated antiunion actions in the private sector. Second, the location of private-sector jobs has changed; high-paying union jobs in the manufacturing sector, the steel industry, and other former bastions of private-sector unionization have mostly gone overseas or to the South, where it’s harder to organize workers. On the other hand, it’s difficult to move government jobs away from the communities they serve. A Philadelphia school, for example, couldn’t just decide it was going to relocate its teachers to Atlanta. Also, public-sector labor forces tend to be more static than in the private sector. More plants than post offices have closed.

Are these trends problems? Though this is partly a political question, let’s look at it objectively in terms of pluses and minuses. On the positive side, by negotiating as a collective, unionized workers are able to earn, on average, roughly 15 percent more than their nonunion counterparts. Unions can also protect the rights of workers against capricious actions by employers. Consider the following example:

Lydia criticized the work of five of her coworkers. They were not amused and posted angry messages on a Facebook page. Lydia complained to her supervisor that the postings violated the employer’s zero tolerance policy against bullying and harassment. The employer investigated and, agreeing that its policy had been violated, fired the five. However, the National Labor Relations Board ruled this an unfair labor practice and ordered them reinstated.

Questions 

1. Labor–management negotiations might be characterized as more distributive than integrative. Do you agree? Why do you think this is the case? What, if anything, would you do about it? 

2. If unions have negotiated unreasonable agreements, what responsibility does management or the administration bear for agreeing to these terms? Why do you think they do agree to such terms? 

3. Assume that you are advising union and management representatives about how to negotiate an agreement. Drawing on the concepts in this chapter, what would you tell them?